Ms. vos Savant
is disconcerting as a master manipulator.
and is the reason why there is endless war.
its not her fault. Einstien was an idiot
but felt bad for the atomic bomb thing.
even though he was overrated. i’m not saying
she is as bad as him, but its the same with
the celebrity intellectuals who’s ideas are safe
for tv. but not acutal acedemia. Neil deGrasse Tyson
is fraud but still useable as a tool for the biotech
industry even though he doesn’t really have a background
in agriculture. or biology. i read Orewell’s 1984 and
from that i’m at odds with Savant’s inadequate response
to an inadequate question which has fueld subjectivists
who pollute conditional probability with their
erradic women like ideas that literally make no sense
what so ever (just like most women). (no offesnse) (no) you guys are ignoreing that reality is conditional
not just conditional reality.
you fail to evaluate limits of indeterminate forms.
the ratio and amout of doors and the specific
situation make it so that Vos’s obviously has
ignored quantitative relation. I disagree. your stay door was at 1/3 only from purportion that the temporarily relevance of proportion could be constituted.
because of the revelation. it is 9/1 7/1 5/1 3/1 2/1 1/1 (0^π) 1/2 1/3 1/5 1/7 1/9 it cannot be 2/3 without 1/3 perporting
it to 1/2 (0). it is only 1/2 chance for it to be 2/3, which
it further degrated by the -1/3. she can not fly a kite
without wind.
the inverse of the “stay” result, is undermined. forexample, what if the player chooses a different card? psychology is arbitrary to innate varibility. yet there is contradiction.
her premise is that the reveleation can effect base object unision, even though it solidifies it. switching, is arbitrary, when we are dealing with the number 3. thats why we should not be impresionable. just becasue we no we are not wrong, doesn’t mean we made a mistake, its obvious that the reveal of the goat makes a difference, and is apart of the reason why what she says is true for almost any situation that isn’t this one.
because of the context of the problem, her ideas mean nothing, and she is wrong. Some say that these solutions answer a slightly different question – one phrasing is “you have to announce before a door has been opened whether you plan to switch”. This statistical illusion occurs because your brain’s process for evaluating probabilities in the Monty Hall problem is based on a false assumption. Similar to optical illusions, the illusion can seem more real than the actual answer.
the reality of conditional probability undermines the context
not just the inferance.
many introductory probability textbooks, solve the problem by showing the conditional probabilities that the car is behind door 1 and door 2 are
1/3 and 2/3
(not 1/2 and 1/2) given that the contestant initially picks door 1 and the host opens door 3; various ways to derive and understand this result were given in the previous subsections.
Among these sources are several that explicitly criticize the popularly presented “simple” solutions, saying these solutions are “correct but … shaky”, or do not “address the problem posed”, or are “incomplete”, or are “unconvincing and misleading”, or are (most bluntly) “false”. probabilities are expressions of our ignorance about the world, and new information can change the extent of our ignorance. Some say that these solutions answer a slightly different question – one phrasing is “you have to announce before a door has been opened whether you plan to switch”. The simple solutions show in various ways that a contestant who is determined to switch will win the car with probability
2/3, and hence that switching is the winning strategy, if the player has to choose in advance between “always switching”, and “always staying”. However, the probability of winning by always switching is a logically distinct concept from the probability of winning by switching given that the player has picked door 1 and the host has opened door 3. As one source says, “the distinction between [these questions] seems to confound many”. The fact that these are different can be shown by varying the problem so that these two probabilities have different numeric values. For example, assume the contestant knows that Monty does not pick the second door randomly among all legal alternatives but instead, when given an opportunity to pick between two losing doors, Monty will open the one on the right. In this situation, the following two questions have different answers:
What is the probability of winning the car by always switching?
What is the probability of winning the car given the player has picked door 1 and the host has opened door 3?
The answer to the first question is
2/3, as is correctly shown by the “simple” solutions. But theanswer to the second question is now different: the conditional probability the car is behind door 1 or door 2 given the host has opened door 3 (the door on the right) is 1/2
. This is because Monty’s preference for rightmost doors means that he opens door 3 if the car is behind door 1 (which it is originally with probability
1/3) or if the car is behind door 2 (also originally with probability
1/3). For this variation, the two questions yield different answers. However, as long as the initial probability the car is behind each door is
1/3, it is never to the contestant’s disadvantage to switch, as the conditional probability of winning by switching is always at least
1/2. Morgan et al complained in their response to vos Savant[41] that vos Savant still had not actually responded to their own main point.
She was wrong. So were her critics. The correct answer is, “What a terribly worded problem. Why don’t you rework it and ask me again when it contains the information I need?”
Vos Savant has done what all academics do when putting this problem to students (and I do when I am putting it to mine), she has turned a real problem that mathematicians cannot answer because they don’t know what the true probabilities are into one they can answer, by making plausible assumptions. Except that it is not clear in this case how plausible the assumptions are.
instead of bayes’s we have a minimax theorem which’ is a theorem providing conditions that guarantee that the max–min inequality is also an equality. The first theorem in this sense is von Neumann’s minimax theorem from 1928, which was considered the starting point of game theory. i can provide several links that hardly touch the subject since its not as popular as it should be, like many other areas that deal with chance, probability and regulation ignorance provails. the Monty Hall problem is not a probability puzzle* (It’s a challenge in mathematical modelling)here the deterministic component of a regression model does such a great job of explaining the dependent variable that it leaves only the intrinsically inexplicable portion of your study area for the error. If you can identify non-randomness in the error term, your independent variables are not explaining everything that they can. she is guilty of Stochastic Error. Subjectivists are more flexible about what they consider a probability. in reality when it comes to the Monty Hall Problem’ there is nothing to understand because the scientific method and it’s context, is an insult to my intelligence. just because i’m an actual philosopher doesn’t mean its possible for me to be wrong about anything. i’m usually write about everything becuase i Know everything, in this case switching can have no effect that is positive. or negative, or have the ability to effect the predeterminied deterministic result that is an effect of a cause. all of this (reality) is ignored because she is a women. (women keep on doing things like that [ignoreing reality]. what you think is a quick trick to help you be better at gambling is really just creating
a wishywashy society of imbeciles who think its okay to switch sides even though there is no proof. because of the quantity of 3 doors, the nature of probability is variable. and dimensions are being ignored to prop her up. i am going to raise up my children to go against Vos Savant. and have them fight against her. (intellectually) the Monty Hall Problem is Fraud. just like IQ tests. also… euler’s line is a straight line through the orthocenter, center of the nine-point circle, the centroid, and the circumcenter. these all represent potintial plot holes in Vos’s lack of
deterministic and quantitative restrictions of which it is only due to how attractive she is that these restrictions are somehow ignored by her.
she is a genius yes at manipulating elderly men into agreeing
with her. despite the reprocusions it would of had and now has had had on history and the economy and endless war.
imagine with each door was a suicide attempt and only one method
would result in a failed not fatal result
though you might wake up in a mental hospital but survive and
change your mind. eatch other attempt would be fatal. it makes no sense to take your chances anymore or less than it does or does not. because it is only 3 doors it is proof that
what she says about probability is nonsense.
that method (of taking chances) got her famous but
its not akeen to actual reality or probability
which is unmoved by external stimuli unless it is.
this is a situation that is not attributed to other situations
due to the relevancy of ratios. and the base objective reality
of ratios that is unmoved by external stimuli.
if you don’t understand how her answer is impossible or only
possible inlight of the rest of the complete answer of which you are all blind too. as for being stupid i’m the only intelligent
p[erson i have ever met in my life unless its a famous person. @Stubbari i’m refering to the scientific method not just objective reality. which doesn’t have a base requirement beyond 100. especially in a situation like this. if you don’t understand varibility or the mechanisms of the universe itsself than by all means’ your basically saying that sine waves and the 2nd and 3rd dimensions don’t exist and that intuition is irrlevant to probability to an extent but its not like that. you are abasically
saying that Fourier transforms don’t exist which is inhospitible. there is objective difference between the base
reality of the number 3 and 300. the dynamic results in differnt results and is at best a contrived hypothetical situation.
The number 300 is a triangular number and the sum of a pair of twin primes (149 + 151), as well as the sum of ten consecutive primes (13 + 17 + 19 + 23 + 29 + 31 + 37 + 41 + 43 + 47). It is palindromic in 3 consecutive bases: 30010 = 6067 = 4548 = 3639, and also in base 13. Factorization is 22 × 3 × 52. 30064 + 1 is prime (three hundred) is the natural number following 299 and preceding 301.
alot of people are quick to call me stupid for merely disagreeing
with her. yet over a 1000 phds disagreed with her.
just as it was wrong for her to suffer abuse.
it is wrong as well for me in the sense that i came
here to share my ideas not to be judged.
. this women is crazy.
you can not false accuse or portray this situation
in a dim subjective light by altering significant asepcts
of the problem in the first place. for example you say the number 300, which has differnt base espstemology even in
coding will have a different objective effect becuase it is
not the number 3 unless its in certain situations and this is most
certaintly not one of those situations.
Greater than 300, means, the number has to start from 3, 4, 5 & the digits not to be repeated, if we say 300 regadless of the reality
of 3. than we must
first we write all such numbers then , select even out of them. For even the last digit has to be either 2 or 4
Starting from 3:
312,314,315,321,324,325,341,342,345,351,352,
354
Starting from 4:
412,413,415,421,423,425,431,432,435,451,452, 453
Starting from 5:
512,513,514,521,523,524…
ect. most of these numbers are no more so related
to the number 3 than there number 300 conserding all the
objective digits inbetween.
the reason why digits and numbers are important
is because its the same as if two footballers where
faced unto a field
and forced to flip a coin.
the fact that door 3 is not a car uplevels
the base chosise both equally and unequally simutanously
canceling it out as equally equally.
for example 3 beautiful women come into your life.
you first fall madly in love with the first door
you don’t really know these women until the door is open.
the 3rd door is open and you can she is dumb like a goat
or animal or as no luxury like a car.
nor utility.
nor is a prize of a women.
your intuition
the women you first fell in love with.
verses the second door.
yes you learn alot about women by the revelation of
the 3rd goatwhamin door. but it is meaninless.
to the inititative or common situation.
if you are adelesant.
or nihilist or don’t believe in true love than pick
the 2nd door.
either way the woman is a thot since that chap
didn’t understand basic logic or intution
both women and food are like doors.
if you touch a piece of food you must put it on
your plate and eat it otherwise it is not polite
it is subjective to sujest that the second choise is
slightly more so promosing than the first choise.
when the revelation of the 3rd choise that was a porkchop
tasted by another agent in the wrong who despised
the tasted of the goat ridden pork.
there are 3 pieces of porkchops
one was cooked properly.
all eaters despise rare food due to paracites.
the first piece was rare and reveled by your drunk
cousin eating it too quick.
there are two more pieces one is cooked and seasoned
perfectly but the other was cooked rare and unseased
except for with goat milk. there are only two out of 3 pieces left.
and the truth of the two is kept secret.
these chops were cooked in your mothers kitchen with the lights
off.
to keep it extra secrete.
your first choise.
you can smell almost taste the seasoning ans lack of goatyness
and it is a porkchop that is delisious like a bran new car
or prize were as the other is mere cat food.
or something a drunk person you hate would eat.
i’m not saying your first choise is less or more
but both less and more and more and more and less and less
and less and more and is π condenced to it’s lowest form.
this is posible given the base inesacpeable reality that it
is a situation with 3 doors not 300. the reality of probability
is varible based on the decay of the oscilation of the wave.
as someone who has studied music in school. i cannot say i agree with Mrs. Vos Savant as she as contributed mathematical illiteracy and numerical fanaticism. that has endangered the world causeing empires to take more risks both economically and diplomatically. her utter ignorance and subjectivism will have or has had unregistered effects on situations were game theary is abused or misused to result in endless war and profit and both her and other so called savants are a threat to the environment, species of fish and cultures. i’m sure she means well. for example einstien was an idiot but heralded as a celebrity. yet he disagreed with the atomic bomb.
and now we have Vos Savant fanboys who don’t understand
basic math. basic logic yes but what i speak of is not actually
basic logic. actual logic yet but not… basic.
if you want basic go to the women (for math) and logic.
nothing she says is even remotely based in reality.
the real trick for companies is to filter out the people who
are naieve enough to simp to her verses the true individuals who
can think for themselves or even at all. (no offense).
even if there were infinite players. it does not change the fact, that the first choise. was not revealed, which equates it to the second choise, 1st or 2nd door as first or last choise, or change choise is irrelvant to probability, there is simply not enough quantity to verify probability beyond the objective chance, that precedes the situation. the probability can only be constributed to the determinsitic reality that is never ending change of causes and effects that set up the doors and goats and cars in the first place. the car burns gasoline at a specific ratio, even if you cover your eyes with your hand, yes you will crash the car but it doesn’t change how much gas is being burnt in the gas tank,
we are talking about 2 doors as a result of reveleation, there is only one player, imagine if one person fliped a coin, or if 1000 fliped a coin, it would still be 50% and would still be 2 doors. 2/3rds is too steep ratio becuase triangle & π and only as a chance relevant to the equation i invented. in quantom physics a machine can not remember the past without also being able to remember the future, x = (1/2=2/3 + - 1/2=1/3). Note the 1/3 is included and the +- (my interpretation of it) to balance out this aspect of reality. you are basically saying that gravity doesn’t exist. this is another example of how IQ tests are meaningless. this situation is immune to the futiles
of exitential probability. a house-cat isn’t a tiger.
actually she is wrong because there are 3 doors. not 100. the 2nd door = x and x = (1/2=2/3 + - 1/2=1/3). the incedence and the situation she refers to have a subjective corrorlation. this is another reason why democracy doesn’t work. because the people are manipulated into not understanding basic math.
3 is the number of angles of triangle. and basis of π condenced to it’s minimal form.
the triangle is an octove of π and it’s the membrain
effect of the numbers, the gravity of them that
protects them from being corrorlated with her
discountected hypothesis. the quantitative relevance of the limited and specific amount
of doors sheilds us from her superstition. i feel sorry
for those that said sorry to her. @Errortonin So on average 150, which is half of the 300 or 1/2.
So how many players out of 300, on average, choose the door with the car when there are 3 doors to choose from and only 1 has the car? So let’s say there are 300 people playing the game. Each choose a random door, then host reveals a goat from the other 2 doors and offers a switch BUT everyone decides to STAY with their initial pick.
How many of those 300 people on average are going to win? on average. 150. its not 2/3rd because of coin flips. for example if i purchase one car. than the price of everyother car that is in a foreign country, is irrelevant. and then also if there is only two choises with no evidence. than 0% or 0/3 would win if they picked door 2, so long as its not door 2 if they picked door one it would be 100% if it was door 1, its subjective to suggest that the 3rd door being scractched off effects the totality of the randombility, in almost any other given situation yes, but here there is no evidence that the peripheries of a coin can effect that randomness of a coin flip. even if the coin is next to a (revealed) coin. this is why polls should be ignored.
because of the reality of ratios. the first pick is irrlevant, so long as 3 is not the first pick. there is no evidence that is corrorlated with the other two options.
what you say is hypothetical. and has nothing to do with anything, i feel sorry for you because of your spelling calibor.
she is wrong. her inferance doesn’t carry weight. “Actually she is absolutely correct. You would also know this if you had paid attention in school.”
Assume you stick with your first pick.
If your first pick is Goat A, you get Goat A.
If your first pick is Goat B, you get Goat B.
If your first pick is the car, you get the car
You only win 1 out of 3 games if you stick with your first pick.
Basic math/logic kids understand, idiot among idiots cannot.
Makes sense
@Errortonin
“because of the reality of ratios. the first pick is irrlevant”
Let’s say the game start with 1 door (1 car).
After you make a pick, the host add a goat door and then give you a chance to switch.
What is your winning chance if you stick with your first pick?
It’s 100%, right?
Now, if the first pick is “irrlevant”, does that means your winning chance is 1 out of 2 doors = 50%?
“so long as 3 is not the first pick.”
lmao.
What if the player pick D3?
Since D3 is a goa and the host has to show another goat, then the last door is the car.
@Klaus 74 look in the mirror. how many people do you see?
GnL Out
1 day ago
Spelling calibor?
Is calibor another word for ‘irony’?
@Klaus 74 you can’t test this problem.
@Errortonin Just tell me:
if there are 300 players, how many on average are going to choose the door with the car?
@Errortonin “you can’t test this problem.”
So by looking at the card you first picked you are too stupid to know if staying or switching will win. That’s pretty sad.
@Klaus 74 whats sad is that your socalled problem is not Peer reviewed (or well respected). even if you do it in your mom’s basement.
@Errortonin “That kind of explains why you would have so much trouble understanding the Monty Hall Problem. Others can try it out for themselves with three cards, two marked ‘goat’, one marked ‘car’ by simply writing down what was first picked. Not everyone is smart enough to know by looking at it so they have to turn over a ‘goat’ card from the other pile first before they write it down. If the card you picked is a ‘goat’ then you can write down that switching wins. If the card you picked is the ‘car’ then you can write down that staying wins. I told you to write it down because you are having so much trouble understanding the problem. I don’t have to write anything down because I am smart enough to know if my pick will win by staying or win by switching just from looking at it. Just tell me:
if there are 300 players, how many on average are going to choose the door with the car? if you keep track of your first pick, you’ll know how often you win by staying and you’ll also know how often you win by switching because it’s the inverse of the “stay” result. Why do you think you cant do that (and why would you even need to “test” if if logically, nobody disputes that you pick the winning card one in three times out of three cards.) Take three cards, two marked ‘goat’, one marked ‘car’. Place them face down and turn one of them over. If by looking at it you are smart enough to know if staying will win or that switching will then you should also be smart enough to know that a reveal of a ‘goat’ wouldn’t have made a difference.”-
that is not true, you do not have the ability to do that.
i agree that i can write but you can’t.
the inverse of the “stay” result, is undermined. forexample, what if the player chooses a different card? psychology is arbitrary to innate varibility. yet there is contradiction.
her premise is that the reveleation can effect base object unision, even though it solidifies it. switching, is arbitrary, when we are dealing with the number 3. thats why we should not be impresionable. just becasue we no we are not wrong, doesn’t mean we made a mistake, its obvious that the reveal of the goat makes a difference, and is apart of the reason why what she says is true for almost any situation that isn’t this one.
because of the context of the problem, her ideas mean nothing, and she is wrong.-
“@Errortonin let me say it this way - you have a stay card and a switch card. You’re left with a choice between two at the time of the switch, so it’s one or the other and the prize is actually behind one of the two.
If your ‘stay’ door is 1/3, then the only other door is 2/3.
This is how you can test this game with three cards. Stay every time and keep track of how often you win. Every other time, you’d win by switching…lol…obviously the Monty Hall Problem is way too difficult for you to understand.”
err, I appreciate the thinking outside of the box, but this problem is settled. And frankly, you are all over the place
There is one important rule to this problem - whether or not the host must open a goat door. That’s it. Nothing else matters.
What I’ve been talking about with my last two posts about this problem being demonstrable with three cards is factually 100 percent correct.
You’re first card is a winner one third of the time. It’s not a debatable point.
And if you don’t take my word for it, pull up a simulator. Or watch the Mythbusters 5 minute video where they test it. better yet, point me to a site that explains what you are trying to say. Between the language and spelling barriers and the metaphysical angles, it’s not easy to understand what you are trying to convey.”
-Ms. vos Savant acknowledged that the ambiguity did exist in her original statement-“I wouldn’t have minded if they had raised that objection,” she said Friday, “because it would mean they really understood the problem.”which is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one’s expectation. It is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to a seemingly self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion. A paradox usually involves contradictory-yet-interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time. They result in “persistent contradiction between interdependent elements” leading to a lasting “unity of opposites”.a paradox relating to conditional probability with respect to an event of probability zero (also known as a null set) The partial conditional probability. From the law of total probability, its expected value is equal to the unconditional probability of it’s (predetermined and undermined) self. she ignores a discrete random variable and its possible outcomes denoted as the cavemen see only the nonzero probability without light of it’s premise or interactions. she is a solo, siloed investigator limited to small sample sizes,
No preregistration of hypotheses being tested,
Post-hoc cherry picking of hypotheses with best values,
Only requiring P < .05,
No replication,
No data sharing.
it is either because C will be pardoned (1/3 chance), or A will be pardoned (1/3 chance) and the coin to decide whether to name B or C the warden flipped came up B (1/2 chance; for an overall 1/2 × 1/3 = 1/6 chance a general result in extreme value theory regarding asymptotic distribution of extreme order statistics.as above) to refer to their actual observed values is erroneous. subjects overwhelmingly respond
as if the targets represented categories, overriding (but not consciously) the actual
question, as we override the literal question the default (if the defaulting conjecture is correct) will be such that the
illusory “equal chances” intuition is prompted. And we can pick out two such pairs,
which immediately suggests why this illusory intuition is notoriously hard to correct, but it is in the realm of social policy that the most
serious consequences are likely to arise, but there nothing so simple as to allow a flat, no
qualifications, verdict of “error” can be expected.
minimax is a theorem providing conditions that guarantee that the max–min inequality is also an equality. something ms. Savant
and her conrines don’t realize, is the darkmatter that disasembles her conclusions which are not based on reality nor the whole story. it is utterly unprovable. and a threat to society.